quote:
The claim isn't that the Bible originated the story of the Flood, it's that it's the TRUE account of the Flood, all the others having been mythified.
The mere existence of similar myths and legends would not be good evidence for that even if it were established that they were independent. As should be very obvious that fact (if it were a fact) does nothing to establish the Biblical account as being any more true than any of the others.
quote:
But all you really have as evidence for the transmission of the Flood stories by that means is speculation. You really don't know, you are guessing
Snorri Sturluson used the Bible story - and the Trojan war - in the introduction to his Edda. The various Middle Eastern stories are all related.
quote:
They still really could be mythified memories carried separately within cultures
You do realise that relying on that "could be" reduces the value of the other myths as evidence quite significantly ?
But even if the stories were "mythified memories" they don't have to be "mythified memories" of the same event. Stories can and do grow and change in the telling. That is one reason why tracking down the origins of the stories is important.
Indeed, why would you want the stories to be independent? According to the Bible, the Flood did not leave scattered survivors - only one family survived and their descendants stayed together until Babel.
quote:
And by the way, we don't need any such evidence, we know the truth because we know the Bible is God's revelation. And that being the case it makes sense that an actual event such as the Flood that is recorded there, might very well be remembered in some form throughout the world.
In reality we know the the Flood did not happen as the Bible described due to the physical evidence (or lack of it). The weak evidence of similar myths could never overwhelm that fact.